In September of 2019, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court made a decision, one of the most
significant constitutional rulings ever made in modern history, ruling that the Prime Minister’s
decision to prorogue parliament’s session was unlawful. The question which can be duly be raised is
how are they to do this? It is through Judicial Review. Judicial Review is a type of court proceeding in
which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. It ensures that
Parliament and public bodies are acting in a way which upholds constitutional rights and the Rule of
Law. However, there is a problem; the problem around how this process impacts democracy. With
unelected judges questioning and impacting the decisions that are made by democratically elected
politicians, this presents an issue of whether this could weaken the democratic process we see within
the United Kingdom.
Defined by the Cambridge dictionary, democracy is a system of government in which power is held
by elected representatives who are freely voted in by the people. As part of this is, the government
promises to uphold the principles of democracy and the Rule of Law; this is where Judicial Review
intervenes to ensure this is upheld.
To answer this question, this article will examine the constitutional role of judicial review, evaluate
and ultimately assess whether it remains an essential safeguard within the UK’s democratic processes
to uphold the Rule of Law.
Judicial review is an essential component to ensure a constitutional safeguard. It is a mechanism
which ensures that the government exercises power lawfully. Although critics argue that it is
completed by unelected judges and can interfere with democratic decision making, if Judicial Review
is restricted it poses a risk that the power of the Rule of Law is weakened and reduces government
accountability to the electorate. This therefore emphasises that Judicial Review is an essential
component of democratic process within the United Kingdom.
Strengthening Democracy
Judicial review allows for upholding of the Rule of Law within democratic decision, which allows for
a strengthening of democracy. This is due to those who are exercising public power remaining
accountable to the law. This means that public bodies can only exercise powers which have been
granted via parliament. Judicial review allows for independent analysis of if these public powers are
acting within the Rule of Law. This is because the Rule of Law presents that no one individual sits
above the law. Through this process it prevents ultra vires decisions; these are decisions which are
acting outside the powers granted by parliament. Presented by Lord Chief Justice Bingham, the Rule
of Law dictates that everyone, including ministers and the government, are subject to the law. This
implies that even after a democratic election, those elected do not sit above legal scrutiny. Judicial
Review allows a mechanism by which courts ensure that public bodies remain within the powers
granted through Parliament. This strengthens democracy through ensuring that executive power is
exercised lawfully rather than arbitrarily. Democracy is not just about electing individuals, it is about
the decisions these individuals make, to promote the best interests of the those who voted for them.
Judicial Review acts as a mechanism to ensure these decisions act within the limits of the law.
Judicial Review allows for the protection of individual liberties and is further strengthened by giving
citizens the right to challenge unlawful decisions made by public bodies and those exercising public
power. Judicial review is the mechanism within the United Kingdom to do this. Consequently, rights
and liberties are protected within society, as members of the public who view a decision as unlawful
have a mechanism through which they can challenge it. Without members of society being able to
challenge unlawful government decisions, a society could be created where their rights are not truly
protected.
This was demonstrated in the case of UNISON v Lord Chancellor, where the fees charged for
employment tribunals were found to deny citizens access to justice. For Bingham, access to justice
was a key component of the Rule of Law. Through this, it is made clear that for a functional
democracy to exist, it is paramount that governmental decisions can be challenged through an
independent court. Therefore, it is clear that, to have a functioning democracy rather than a
dictatorship, citizens should have the right to challenge government decisions, proving that the
process of Judicial Review strengthens democracy.
Through upholding the Rule of Law and protecting individual liberties, Judicial Review provides a
constitutional mechanism that ensures public bodies exercise their powers within the limits of the law.
By holding the government accountable and enabling unlawful decisions to be challenged, Judicial
Review reinforces the foundations democracy is built upon. Consequently, it can be argued plausibly
that Judicial Review strengthens democracy rather than weakening it.
Weakens Democracy
Judicial Review may cause a weakening of the UK’s democratic process due to decisions being
reviewed by unelected judges. The basis of democracy is that it is completed by elected officials who
are elected to deliver a mandate. If, through the process of Judicial Review, the courts delay or block
these policies, there is a strong argument that they are blocking those who were democratically elected
by the will of the electorate. This means that critics may claim that it can undermine parliamentary sovereignty and democratic legitimacy. This is due to unelected officials becoming involved with the
democratic process.
However, this is not the purpose of Judicial Review. Judicial Review does not ask whether decisions
are politically desirable or whether they reflect the will of the electorate. Instead, it assesses whether
the decision was made lawfully and within the powers granted by Parliament. Therefore, although it
may appear that Judicial Review interferes with democratic decisions, its purpose is to ensure that the
democratic process is exercised lawfully and consistently with the Rule of Law. Overall, this proves
that Judicial Review acts as a mechanism to ensure democracy is as strong as possible, rather than
weakening it.
When considering Judicial Review, it may appear that it interferes with democratic processes by
allowing unelected judges to review decisions made by elected governments. However, upon deeper
investigation and evaluation, it becomes apparent that Judicial Review acts as a safeguarding
mechanism to ensure that governmental decisions are made lawfully and within the powers granted by
Parliament. Consequently, rather than undermining democracy, Judicial Review reinforces democratic
legitimacy.
Conclusion
After close and in-depth analysis, it is apparent that Judicial Review acts as a constitutional safeguard,
which strengthens the UK’s democracy. While there are legitimate concerns about unelected judges
becoming involved in the democratic process, these concerns are ultimately outweighed by the
benefits Judicial Review provides. As discussed, Judicial Review does not undermine democracy;
instead, it serves as a mechanism to evaluate the legality of decisions. It ensures that decisions work
within the Rule of Law and that no individual is above this. Without judicial scrutiny, one must
question whether a functioning democracy could truly exist. I would argue that it could not.
Reference list
Bingham, T. (2011). The Rule of Law. London: Penguin.
Cambridge dictionary (2023). DEMOCRACY | Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. [online]
Cambridge.org. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy [Accessed 19 Jun.
2026].
Courts and Tribunal Judiciary (2024). Judicial review – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. [online] Courts and
Tribunals Judiciary. Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/how-the-law-works/judicial-review/ [Accessed 18
Jun. 2026].
Supremecourt.uk. (2024a). R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent) – UK
Supreme Court. [online] Available at: https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192 [Accessed 25 Jun. 2026].
Supremecourt.uk. (2024b). R (on the application of UNISON) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor (Respondent) – UK
Supreme Court. [online] Available at: https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0233 [Accessed 25 Jun. 2026].
The Law Society (2025). The Law Society. [online] @thelawsociety. Available at:
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/human-rights/fighting-for-rights-unison-v-the-lord-chancellor [Accessed
23 Jun. 2026].
